It started out innocently enough. I began to think at parties now
and then -- just to loosen up.

Inevitably, though, one thought led to another, and soon I was more
than just a social thinker.

I began to think alone -- "to relax," I told myself -- but I knew it
wasn't true. Thinking became more and more important to me, and
finally I was thinking all the time.

That was when things began to sour at home. One evening I turned off
the TV and asked my wife about the meaning of life. She spent that
night at her mother's.

I began to think on the job. I knew that thinking and employment
don't mix, but I couldn't help myself.

I began to avoid friends at lunchtime so I could read Thoreau, Muir,
Confucius and Kafka. I would return to the office dizzied and
confused, asking, "What is it exactly we are doing here?"

One day the boss called me in. He said, "Listen, I like you, and it
hurts me to say this, but your thinking has become a real problem. If
you don't stop thinking on the job, you'll have to find another job."

This gave me a lot to think about. I came home early after my
conversation with the boss. "Honey," I confessed, "I've been
thinking..."

"I know you've been thinking," she said, "and I want a divorce!"

"But Honey, surely it's not that serious." "It is serious," she said,
lower lip aquiver.


"You think as much as college professors and college professors don't
make any money, so if you keep on thinking, we won't have any money!

"That's a faulty syllogism," I said impatiently.


She exploded in tears of rage and frustration, but I was in no mood
to deal with the emotional drama.


"I'm going to the library," I snarled as I stomped out the door.

I headed for the library, in the mood for some Nietzsche. I roared
into the parking lot with NPR on the radio and ran up to the big glass
doors.

They didn't open. The library was closed.

To this day, I believe that a Higher Power was looking out for me
that night. Leaning on the unfeeling glass, whimpering for
Zarathustra, a poster caught my eye,

"Friend, is heavy thinking ruining your life?" it asked.

You probably recognize that line. It comes from the standard
Thinkers Anonymous poster.


This is why I am what I am today: a recovering thinker.
I never miss a TA meeting. At each meeting we watch a non-
educational video; last week it was "Porky's." Then we share
experiences about how we avoided thinking since the last meeting.


I still have my job, and things are a lot better at home. Life just
seemed easier, somehow, as soon as I stopped thinking. I think the
road to recovery is nearly complete for me.


Today I took the final step . . . In a last final desperate
measure, I joined the Democrat Party.

On Oct 11, 12:05 am, Gunner wrote:
It started out innocently enough. I began to think at parties now
and then -- just to loosen up.

Inevitably, though, one thought led to another, and soon I was more
than just a social thinker.

I began to think alone -- "to relax," I told myself -- but I knew it
wasn't true. Thinking became more and more important to me, and
finally I was thinking all the time.

That was when things began to sour at home. One evening I turned off
the TV and asked my wife about the meaning of life. She spent that
night at her mother's.

I began to think on the job. I knew that thinking and employment
don't mix, but I couldn't help myself.

I began to avoid friends at lunchtime so I could read Thoreau, Muir,
Confucius and Kafka. I would return to the office dizzied and
confused, asking, "What is it exactly we are doing here?"

One day the boss called me in. He said, "Listen, I like you, and it
hurts me to say this, but your thinking has become a real problem. If
you don't stop thinking on the job, you'll have to find another job."

This gave me a lot to think about. I came home early after my
conversation with the boss. "Honey," I confessed, "I've been
thinking..."

"I know you've been thinking," she said, "and I want a divorce!"

"But Honey, surely it's not that serious." "It is serious," she said,
lower lip aquiver.

"You think as much as college professors and college professors don't
make any money, so if you keep on thinking, we won't have any money!

"That's a faulty syllogism," I said impatiently.

She exploded in tears of rage and frustration, but I was in no mood
to deal with the emotional drama.

"I'm going to the library," I snarled as I stomped out the door.

I headed for the library, in the mood for some Nietzsche. I roared
into the parking lot with NPR on the radio and ran up to the big glass
doors.

They didn't open. The library was closed.

To this day, I believe that a Higher Power was looking out for me
that night. Leaning on the unfeeling glass, whimpering for
Zarathustra, a poster caught my eye,

"Friend, is heavy thinking ruining your life?" it asked.

You probably recognize that line. It comes from the standard
Thinkers Anonymous poster.

This is why I am what I am today: a recovering thinker.
I never miss a TA meeting. At each meeting we watch a non-
educational video; last week it was "Porky's." Then we share
experiences about how we avoided thinking since the last meeting.

I still have my job, and things are a lot better at home. Life just
seemed easier, somehow, as soon as I stopped thinking. I think the
road to recovery is nearly complete for me.

Today I took the final step . . . In a last final desperate
measure, I joined the Democrat Party.

"...Life just seemed easier, somehow, as soon as I stopped
thinking..."

Hence the expression "Happy as a pig in sh*t", or "ignorance is
bliss".

Personally I'd rather be knowledgeable and miserable:-)).

Wolfgang

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 21:05:32 -0700, Gunner wrote:

Today I took the final step . . . In a last final desperate
measure, I joined the Democrat Party.

Actually, this is applicable to both of the mainstream parties; the
People's Socialists, who call themselves "Democrat", who want to take your
money away to give it to poor people, and the National Socialists, who
call themselves "Republican", who want to take your money away and give it
to rich people.

That's why I vote Libertarian! :-)

Cheers!
Rich

Today I took the final step . . . In a last final desperate
measure, I joined the Democrat Party.

Actually, this is applicable to both of the mainstream parties; the
People's Socialists, who call themselves "Democrat", who want to take your
money away to give it to poor people, and the National Socialists, who
call themselves "Republican", who want to take your money away and give it
to rich people.

That's why I vote Libertarian! :-)

Cheers!
Rich


That also gives you the advantage of never having voted for a party whose
candidates actually get elected. If you consider voting for losing
candidates perpetually an advantage. Aside from that, in your comparison
between the parties there is one big difference between what they do with
the money they take in taxes. Republicans want to take it and give it to the
rich, of which there are only a lucky few. Democrats, on the other hand,
take the money and give it to the poor, of which there are many. Now you
tell me which does more good? Helping the poor or helping those who are
already rich and don't need help? If you can answer that question truthfully
then it's clear that one party is clearly better for people than the other
is. At least it's better for a lot more of them, and the ones who actually
could use the help. And isn't that what the function of government is?

Hawke

"Richard The Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 21:05:32 -0700, Gunner wrote:

Today I took the final step . . . In a last final desperate
measure, I joined the Democrat Party.

Actually, this is applicable to both of the mainstream parties; the
People's Socialists, who call themselves "Democrat", who want to take your
money away to give it to poor people, and the National Socialists, who
call themselves "Republican", who want to take your money away and give it
to rich people.

That's why I vote Libertarian! :-)

Cheers!
Rich

As for Bummer being a thinker, forgetaboutit. Anyone that has read what he
writes would never buy the idea of him as a thinker. That would be about as
hard to believe as George Bush being a thinker. No way.

Hawke

On Oct 11, 2:05 pm, Gunner wrote:
It started out innocently enough. I began to think at parties now
and then -- just to loosen up.

Inevitably, though, one thought led to another, and soon I was more
than just a social thinker.

Nah. You got it wrong, mate. Joining a political party is non
thinking, ie the belief that assorted proven rogues and ruffians can
somehow improve society.

Your confusing "thinking" and "advanced thinking" , which is much more
complex.

And you do think - ie, you figure out how machine tools work, how to
drive (although I must admit, a lot of drivers dont do very much), how
to sidetrack debates by either changing the subject or quoting some
specious set of tailored internet "facts", -.......nuff said....you
will get there one day Gunner, the fact your still alive means there
is some hope for you yet....

Andrew VK3BFA.

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 06:08:49 -0700, wrote:

On Oct 11, 2:05 pm, Gunner wrote:
It started out innocently enough. I began to think at parties now
and then -- just to loosen up.

Inevitably, though, one thought led to another, and soon I was more
than just a social thinker.

Nah. You got it wrong, mate. Joining a political party is non
thinking, ie the belief that assorted proven rogues and ruffians can
somehow improve society.


Actually...joining a political party is pro-active. Think of them as
an interest group. A group of people who have joined together to push
a common agenda. Being complex, not all members have the exact same
agendas, but pragmatic compromises are made for the "common good" as
each group sees it.

A thinking man picks the "interest group" that most meets his world
views and desires. With my interest group, its smaller government,
lower taxes, freedom and so forth.

With other action groups..say the Democrats, its Marxism, socialism,
progressivism, the Nanny State (as in the UK), limits on personal
freedoms and so forth.

True..Democrats "feel" rather than think. Few are rational, logical or
even reasonable, but shrug..we let even the retarded have their
groups..makes them feel good and they can have a sense of belonging,
that being the only sort of sense they are capable of.

True..often times the heads of those action committees are rogues or
ruffians, or worse, but they generally steer in the direction we wish.

If they dont, we unelect them and put a new group of rogues or
ruffians at the top. And they often DO what we want of them. Though to
be fair, like recalcitrant retarded children..it takes begging,
threats and so forth to get them to perform, but seldom to our
complete satisfaction.

Democrats however...are exceptions to the rules, their rogues and
ruffians tend to lead the membership around by the nose, or ear, with
cajoling, threats, fear tactics etc, so the top wags the members,
rather than the other way around. Like keepers of a group of Downs
Syndrome victims.

Gunner

Hawke wrote:
Republicans want to take it and give it to the
rich, of which there are only a lucky few. Democrats, on the other hand,
take the money and give it to the poor, of which there are many.

Hawke


But the Dems, want to take more of MINE and since I am unable
to get from either party I prefer to go with the ones that
do the LEAST damage to my pocket. :-)
...lew...

"Lew Hartswick" wrote in message
...
Hawke wrote:
Republicans want to take it and give it to the
rich, of which there are only a lucky few. Democrats, on the other hand,
take the money and give it to the poor, of which there are many.

Hawke


But the Dems, want to take more of MINE and since I am unable
to get from either party I prefer to go with the ones that
do the LEAST damage to my pocket. :-)
...lew...

It seems that the small government, anti Democrat, leave me alone kind of
guys all seem to forget something when they are complaining about the
government taking money out of their pockets. What do you think they do with
that money, go on trips to Vegas to gamble? No, they use that money to do
what most Americans want done with it. Things like creating and maintaining
the nation's infrastructure. I assume that is okay with you. They use it to
build and maintain an army, That okay? They use it for the police, fire,
emergency services. That's okay too isn't it? It also goes for Social
Security for your parents, and Medicare for them as well. They use it to pay
the giant debt the republicans have given us. So you see, the money they
take goes for what you and everybody else really wants. If you really didn't
want any of that stuff you would have a point. But I never met a republican
who didn't want his parents health and income to be the government's
responsibility, and didn't want the world's biggest army, and didn't want
police, CIA, FBI, and Homeland Security etc. The bottom line is that
Americans want things from the government. They just don't want to pay for
it.

Hawke

Hawke wrote:
"Lew Hartswick" wrote in message
...

Hawke wrote:

Republicans want to take it and give it to the
rich, of which there are only a lucky few. Democrats, on the other hand,
take the money and give it to the poor, of which there are many.

Hawke


But the Dems, want to take more of MINE and since I am unable
to get from either party I prefer to go with the ones that
do the LEAST damage to my pocket. :-)
...lew...


What do you think they do with
that money, go on trips to Vegas to gamble?

Well they do take a LOT of trips to very nice places that have very
little to do with governing this country.

No, they use that money to do
what most Americans want done with it. Things like creating and maintaining
the nation's infrastructure. I assume that is okay with you. They use it to
build and maintain an army, That okay? They use it for the police, fire,
emergency services.

The Republicans do that also.


That's okay too isn't it? It also goes for Social
Security for your parents, and Medicare for them as well.

Both of my parents are long gone. I'm 75

They use it to pay
the giant debt the republicans have given us.

Oh I see all the debt has been generated by the Rep. ( HA HA )

So you see, the money they
take goes for what you and everybody else really wants. If you really didn't
want any of that stuff you would have a point. But I never met a republican
who didn't want his parents health and income to be the government's
responsibility,

Like I said It's my health I'm concerned about ans I'd just as soon
have control over it myself.

The bottom line is that
Americans want things from the government. They just don't want to pay for
it.

Not "Americans" just the incompent liberals and wellfare recipents. :-)


Hawke

...lew...

Hawke wrote:

Republicans want to take it and give it to the
rich, of which there are only a lucky few. Democrats, on the other
hand,
take the money and give it to the poor, of which there are many.

Hawke

What do you think they do with
that money, go on trips to Vegas to gamble?

Well they do take a LOT of trips to very nice places that have very
little to do with governing this country.

Yes they do. But they get that money from lobbyists and campaign
contributors not the general fund.


No, they use that money to do
what most Americans want done with it. Things like creating and
maintaining
the nation's infrastructure. I assume that is okay with you. They use it
to
build and maintain an army, That okay? They use it for the police, fire,
emergency services.

The Republicans do that also.

That's what they are supposed to be doing which ever party they belong to.
The point is they are using your tax money to do things you want done.

That's okay too isn't it? It also goes for Social
Security for your parents, and Medicare for them as well.

Both of my parents are long gone. I'm 75

I'll assume they already collected Social Security and you have been too. At
75 I think I can also assume that you have collected more than you
contributed. That is tax money coming from the taxpayers that is going into
your pocket. I take it that is okay with you, which makes you just like
everybody else who wants something from the government.

They use it to pay
the giant debt the republicans have given us.

Oh I see all the debt has been generated by the Rep. ( HA HA )

No, not all has been generated by the republicans but I just heard
yesterday, as a matter of fact, that since Bush has been president the
republican congress has added more to the national debt than most, if not
all, of the other presidents combined. So yes, the republicans have given us
more debt than anyone. Add the debt that Reagan and Bush I contributed and
it's clear who has spent the country into a 10 trillion dollar debt. When
Clinton was in office he had four years of a surplus. See the difference?


So you see, the money they
take goes for what you and everybody else really wants. If you really
didn't
want any of that stuff you would have a point. But I never met a
republican
who didn't want his parents health and income to be the government's
responsibility,

Like I said It's my health I'm concerned about ans I'd just as soon
have control over it myself.

I don't blame you. So do I. But I'd rather have national health care that I
know I can count on rather than have to buy insurance from a for profit firm
that will do everything in its power to make as much from me as possible and
deny me medical care every chance it gets.


The bottom line is that
Americans want things from the government. They just don't want to pay
for
it.

Not "Americans" just the incompent liberals and wellfare recipents. :-)

You may incorrectly think that if you want but the fact is business and the
wealthy are also looking to get everything they can from the government too.
Not just liberals and welfare recipients, of which there are less and less
of. You need to check the facts. The truth is it isn't the poor that get the
most from the government it's the wealthy. Why do you think they pay so many
people to lobby the government for advantages for themselves? They aren't
stupid. They know a buck spent giving to politicians comes back in spades.
The poor can't do that. You're laboring under old fashioned illusions that
just aren't true.

Hawke

Maxwell Lol wrote:

Lew Hartswick writes:


They use it to pay
the giant debt the republicans have given us.

Oh I see all the debt has been generated by the Rep. ( HA HA )


The national debt was dropping in 2000 and 2001 (adjusted for inflation).
Since then it has increased by 2 trillion dollars.

The average debt is currently $29,828.08 - per citizen.


Would like to see some references to that, Max.

Whatch got?

Richard

On 13 Oct 2007 06:50:23 -0400, Maxwell Lol wrote:

Lew Hartswick writes:

They use it to pay
the giant debt the republicans have given us.

Oh I see all the debt has been generated by the Rep. ( HA HA )

The national debt was dropping in 2000 and 2001 (adjusted for inflation).
Since then it has increased by 2 trillion dollars.

Ayup..wars tend to do that.

The average debt is currently $29,828.08 - per citizen.

Isnt it good to see Bush has cut the debt in half?

And you guys say he is evil.

Gunner

Maxwell Lol wrote:

cavelamb himself writes:


The national debt was dropping in 2000 and 2001 (adjusted for
inflation).
Since then it has increased by 2 trillion dollars.
The average debt is currently $29,828.08 - per citizen.


Would like to see some references to that, Max.


google "national debt" chart

On top of the list was:

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html

There are two charts on the FAQ page - one shows actual
values, the second is adjusted for inflation. It's the second chart
that shows it was dropping, probably because Clinton balanced the budget.

Frankly I don't like the "Raise the debt and lower the taxes so I look
good for now, and let the next President worry about the debt"
that I find irresponsible.





Thin-Q, Max.

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:19:46 -0700, Gunner wrote:
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 06:08:49 -0700, wrote:
On Oct 11, 2:05 pm, Gunner wrote:
It started out innocently enough. I began to think at parties now
and then -- just to loosen up.

Inevitably, though, one thought led to another, and soon I was more
than just a social thinker.

Nah. You got it wrong, mate. Joining a political party is non thinking,
ie the belief that assorted proven rogues and ruffians can somehow
improve society.

Actually...joining a political party is pro-active. Think of them as an
interest group. A group of people who have joined together to push a
common agenda. Being complex, not all members have the exact same
agendas, but pragmatic compromises are made for the "common good" as each
group sees it.

A thinking man picks the "interest group" that most meets his world views
and desires. With my interest group, its smaller government, lower taxes,
freedom and so forth.

With other action groups..say the Democrats, its Marxism, socialism,
progressivism, the Nanny State (as in the UK), limits on personal freedoms
and so forth.

True..Democrats "feel" rather than think. Few are rational, logical or
even reasonable, but shrug..we let even the retarded have their
groups..makes them feel good and they can have a sense of belonging, that
being the only sort of sense they are capable of.

THe right-wingers (who have co-opted the name "republican") do neither.

Their imprint is "You have disturbed me, and I must kill you."

Cheers!
Rich

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 21:46:59 -0700, Hawke wrote:
"Richard The Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in message
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 21:05:32 -0700, Gunner wrote:

Today I took the final step . . . In a last final desperate
measure, I joined the Democrat Party.

Actually, this is applicable to both of the mainstream parties; the
People's Socialists, who call themselves "Democrat", who want to take
your money away to give it to poor people, and the National Socialists,
who call themselves "Republican", who want to take your money away and
give it to rich people.

That's why I vote Libertarian! :-)

As for Bummer being a thinker, forgetaboutit. Anyone that has read what he
writes would never buy the idea of him as a thinker. That would be about
as hard to believe as George Bush being a thinker. No way.

Hasn't anybody else noticed that it's a joke? Substitute "drink" for
"think", and it sounds just like a standare drunkalogue.

Hope This Helps!
Rich

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 21:44:52 -0700, Hawke wrote:


Today I took the final step . . . In a last final desperate
measure, I joined the Democrat Party.

Actually, this is applicable to both of the mainstream parties; the
People's Socialists, who call themselves "Democrat", who want to take
your money away to give it to poor people, and the National Socialists,
who call themselves "Republican", who want to take your money away and
give it to rich people.

That's why I vote Libertarian! :-)

That also gives you the advantage of never having voted for a party whose
candidates actually get elected. If you consider voting for losing
candidates perpetually an advantage.

It's the best way I know of to vote against both Beavis and Butthead.

Thanks,
Rich

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 21:44:52 -0700, Hawke wrote:
Today I took the final step . . . In a last final desperate
measure, I joined the Democrat Party.

Actually, this is applicable to both of the mainstream parties; the
People's Socialists, who call themselves "Democrat", who want to take
your money away to give it to poor people, and the National Socialists,
who call themselves "Republican", who want to take your money away and
give it to rich people.

That's why I vote Libertarian! :-)

That also gives you the advantage of never having voted for a party whose
candidates actually get elected. If you consider voting for losing
candidates perpetually an advantage. Aside from that, in your comparison
between the parties there is one big difference between what they do with
the money they take in taxes. Republicans want to take it and give it to
the rich, of which there are only a lucky few. Democrats, on the other
hand, take the money and give it to the poor, of which there are many. Now
you tell me which does more good?

Neither. They're both thieves.

Thanks,
Rich

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:38:41 -0700, Hawke wrote:
"Lew Hartswick" wrote in message
Hawke wrote:
Republicans want to take it and give it to the rich, of which there
are only a lucky few. Democrats, on the other hand, take the money and
give it to the poor, of which there are many.

But the Dems, want to take more of MINE and since I am unable to get
from either party I prefer to go with the ones that do the LEAST damage
to my pocket. :-)

It seems that the small government, anti Democrat, leave me alone kind of
guys all seem to forget something when they are complaining about the
government taking money out of their pockets. What do you think they do
with that money, go on trips to Vegas to gamble?

No, they go to Monte Carlo and gamble.

Cheers!
Rich

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 13:54:43 -0400, Maxwell Lol wrote:
cavelamb himself writes:
The national debt was dropping in 2000 and 2001 (adjusted for
inflation).
Since then it has increased by 2 trillion dollars. The average debt is
currently $29,828.08 - per citizen.

Would like to see some references to that, Max.

google "national debt" chart

On top of the list was:

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html

There are two charts on the FAQ page - one shows actual
values, the second is adjusted for inflation. It's the second chart that
shows it was dropping, probably because Clinton balanced the budget.

The Repugnacons hate the **** out of him for actually doing something
good; the only misfeasance they could "get" him on was getting caught
getting a blow job in the oval office.

Thanks
Rich

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 13:54:43 -0400, Maxwell Lol wrote:
cavelamb himself writes:

The national debt was dropping in 2000 and 2001 (adjusted for
inflation).
Since then it has increased by 2 trillion dollars. The average debt is
currently $29,828.08 - per citizen.


Would like to see some references to that, Max.

google "national debt" chart

On top of the list was:

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html

There are two charts on the FAQ page - one shows actual
values, the second is adjusted for inflation. It's the second chart that
shows it was dropping, probably because Clinton balanced the budget.

Frankly I don't like the "Raise the debt and lower the taxes so I look
good for now, and let the next President worry about the debt" that I find
irresponsible.

How many people are now dead because of it?

Thanks,
Rich

Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 13:54:43 -0400, Maxwell Lol wrote:

cavelamb himself writes:

The national debt was dropping in 2000 and 2001 (adjusted for
inflation).
Since then it has increased by 2 trillion dollars. The average debt is
currently $29,828.08 - per citizen.


Would like to see some references to that, Max.

google "national debt" chart

On top of the list was:

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html

There are two charts on the FAQ page - one shows actual
values, the second is adjusted for inflation. It's the second chart that
shows it was dropping, probably because Clinton balanced the budget.


The Repugnacons hate the **** out of him for actually doing something
good; the only misfeasance they could "get" him on was getting caught
getting a blow job in the oval office.

Thanks
Rich


Well, if G Dubwa hasn't gottem his yet then I have no respect for him at
all...

But who is going to go down on Hillary?

Hawkie?

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 18:57:43 -0500, cavelamb himself wrote:
Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 13:54:43 -0400, Maxwell Lol wrote:
cavelamb himself writes:

The national debt was dropping in 2000 and 2001 (adjusted for
inflation).
Since then it has increased by 2 trillion dollars. The average debt is
currently $29,828.08 - per citizen.

Would like to see some references to that, Max.

google "national debt" chart

On top of the list was:

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html

There are two charts on the FAQ page - one shows actual
values, the second is adjusted for inflation. It's the second chart that
shows it was dropping, probably because Clinton balanced the budget.

The Repugnacons hate the **** out of him for actually doing something
good; the only misfeasance they could "get" him on was getting caught
getting a blow job in the oval office.

Well, if G Dubwa hasn't gottem his yet then I have no respect for him at
all...

But who is going to go down on Hillary?


Pope Al? ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

On 13 Oct 2007 13:54:43 -0400, Maxwell Lol wrote:

There are two charts on the FAQ page - one shows actual
values, the second is adjusted for inflation. It's the second chart
that shows it was dropping, probably because Clinton balanced the budget.


Then the chart is worthless as Clinton never balanced the budget.

Gunner

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 22:54:54 GMT, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 13:54:43 -0400, Maxwell Lol wrote:
cavelamb himself writes:

The national debt was dropping in 2000 and 2001 (adjusted for
inflation).
Since then it has increased by 2 trillion dollars. The average debt is
currently $29,828.08 - per citizen.


Would like to see some references to that, Max.

google "national debt" chart

On top of the list was:

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html

There are two charts on the FAQ page - one shows actual
values, the second is adjusted for inflation. It's the second chart that
shows it was dropping, probably because Clinton balanced the budget.

Frankly I don't like the "Raise the debt and lower the taxes so I look
good for now, and let the next President worry about the debt" that I find
irresponsible.

How many people are now dead because of it?

Thanks,
Rich

Ask the Bosnians and the Somalians.

WHooops.t.hat was Clinton..sorry

Gunner

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
...
Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 13:54:43 -0400, Maxwell Lol wrote:

cavelamb himself writes:

The national debt was dropping in 2000 and 2001 (adjusted for
inflation).
Since then it has increased by 2 trillion dollars. The average debt is
currently $29,828.08 - per citizen.


Would like to see some references to that, Max.

google "national debt" chart

On top of the list was:

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html

There are two charts on the FAQ page - one shows actual
values, the second is adjusted for inflation. It's the second chart that
shows it was dropping, probably because Clinton balanced the budget.


The Repugnacons hate the **** out of him for actually doing something
good; the only misfeasance they could "get" him on was getting caught
getting a blow job in the oval office.

Thanks
Rich


Well, if G Dubwa hasn't gottem his yet then I have no respect for him at
all...

But who is going to go down on Hillary?

Hawkie?

I know a lot of married guys who go down on a lot worse.

Hawke

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On 13 Oct 2007 06:50:23 -0400, Maxwell Lol wrote:

Lew Hartswick writes:

They use it to pay
the giant debt the republicans have given us.

Oh I see all the debt has been generated by the Rep. ( HA HA )

The national debt was dropping in 2000 and 2001 (adjusted for inflation).
Since then it has increased by 2 trillion dollars.

Ayup..wars tend to do that.

The average debt is currently $29,828.08 - per citizen.

Isnt it good to see Bush has cut the debt in half?

And you guys say he is evil.

Gunner


No he hasn't. See my Sanchez and Brinker post.

Hawke

Hawke wrote:
"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
...

Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 13:54:43 -0400, Maxwell Lol wrote:


cavelamb himself writes:


The national debt was dropping in 2000 and 2001 (adjusted for
inflation).
Since then it has increased by 2 trillion dollars. The average debt is
currently $29,828.08 - per citizen.


Would like to see some references to that, Max.

google "national debt" chart

On top of the list was:

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html

There are two charts on the FAQ page - one shows actual
values, the second is adjusted for inflation. It's the second chart that
shows it was dropping, probably because Clinton balanced the budget.


The Repugnacons hate the **** out of him for actually doing something
good; the only misfeasance they could "get" him on was getting caught
getting a blow job in the oval office.

Thanks
Rich


Well, if G Dubwa hasn't gottem his yet then I have no respect for him at
all...

But who is going to go down on Hillary?

Hawkie?


I know a lot of married guys who go down on a lot worse.

Hawke



I'm going to have to resurrect Valley Girl Talk for that one.

"Gag me with a spoon".

On 13 Oct 2007 22:59:09 -0400, Maxwell Lol wrote:

Gunner writes:

On 13 Oct 2007 13:54:43 -0400, Maxwell Lol wrote:

There are two charts on the FAQ page - one shows actual
values, the second is adjusted for inflation. It's the second chart
that shows it was dropping, probably because Clinton balanced the budget.


Then the chart is worthless as Clinton never balanced the budget.


---------------------------------------
Clinton announces record payment on national debt

By John King/CNN

May 1, 2000
Web posted at: 5:13 p.m. EDT (2113 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) - President Bill Clinton said Monday that the United States would pay off $216 billion in debt this year, bringing to $355 billion the amount of the nation's debt paid down in the three years since the government balanced the budget and began running surpluses.
------------------------

President Clinton announces another record budget surplus

From CNN White House Correspondent Kelly Wallace

September 27, 2000
Web posted at: 4:51 p.m. EDT (2051 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion.

http://www.worldfreeinternet.net/news/nws174.htm

Believe me, we were stretching it when we did five-year projections,"
said Leon E. Panetta, who was once Clinton's chief of staff, his
budget director and chairman of the House Budget Committee. "Any time
you get out beyond a few years, you're in never-never land." And from
the Republican side, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete V. Domenici
of New Mexico, said: "I don't think [Clinton] should have done 15-year
numbers. It created a distorted picture. It made the numbers look way
too big." (Surprise, surprise! Bill Clinton did something that created
a distorted picture! WFI Editor)


Projections that dont come true..arent real.


Gunner

On 13 Oct 2007 23:00:23 -0400, Maxwell Lol wrote:

Gunner writes:

Isnt it good to see Bush has cut the debt in half?

An increase of 2+ Trillion dollars isn't cutting the debt.


October 8, 2006
The Federal Budget Deficit: Bush Benchmark Achieved, Ignored
Filed under: Economy, MSM Biz/Other Bias, MSM Biz/Other Ignorance,
Taxes & Government — TBlumer @ 9:02 am

….. and the best may be yet to come.
___________________________________

A huge point has been virtually if not totally ignored since the
announcement on Friday that the reported federal deficit for the
fiscal year that ended a week ago was $250 billion — The Bush
Administration has done what it said it would do about the deficit
three years ago, and has done it a full three years early, i.e., in
half the time predicted.

This continues what has been a very difficult past few years for those
who deride supply-side economics. If Washington, with a little help
from the states, lets the supply-side engine continue to chug along
for next several years, the results could be so positively stunning
that it would become impossible for supply-side detractors in touch
with any part of the real world to hang on to the comfort of their
static-analysis fantasyland.

But first, let’s recap what has happened in the past three fiscal
years:

* Tax receipts have soared by over 35% (with 5.5%, 14.5%, and
11.7% increases in fiscal 2004, 2005, and 2006, respectively) from
$1.78 trillion to $2.41 trillion (2004 and 2005 results can be found
at Page 2 of this PDF from the Congressional Budget Office [CBO];
2006’s receipts were estimated by adding the $253 billion revenue
increase reported near the end of this longer story).

* Despite the costs of the Iraq War, the rest of the War on
Terror, Katrina relief, and not nearly enough control over other
spending, the administration has accomplished its goal of cutting the
reported deficit in half by the time it leaves office a full three
years early (fiscal 2009, which ends a little less than three years
from now, is the last budget over which the Bush Administration will
have responsibility). Andrew Taylor of the Associated Press reported
on the deficit yesterday (commented on here) but “somehow” missed this
little nugget of good news, even though he reported on the
administration’s original fiscal 2004 promise in a “not going to
happen” manner just under a year ago on October 14, 2005 (last two
paragraphs at link) –

The White House has set a goal of cutting the deficit in
half from the $521 billion prediction for 2004 that it issued at the
beginning of that year. (the original goal was therefore set sometime
before October 1, 2003, the beginning of the 2004 fiscal year — Ed.)

The administration says it is still on track to reach that
$260 billion goal by the time Bush leaves office. But administration
budget projections leave out the long-term costs of occupying Iraq and
Afghanistan, and have yet to be updated with cost estimates of
hurricane relief.

Even with all of those costs included, the administration has
reached its goal. How ’bout that, Andrew?

* Economic growth has averaged an annualized 3.89% during the past
13 quarters since the 2003 Bush tax cuts were passed. This is a record
that for all practical purposes matches the best seven years of the
Clinton administration, but trails the best seven years of the
Reagan-Bush 41 and Kennedy Johnson eras, when more aggressive tax cuts
were enacted:
13QgdpGrowth

(Bottom time period actually ends at 2Q06 — Ed.)

This is all very nice. But it could get better — much, much better. So
much better that it’s scary to even contemplate the possibilities,
because if the ruling class in Washington thinks it might really
happen, they’ll probably figure out how to ruin it.

For starters, understand that I have been using the term “reported
federal deficit” for a reason. The TRUE federal deficit is much
higher. That’s because for decades federal budgetmakers have reduced
the true deficit by the amount by which Social Security tax
collections have exceeded Social Security benefits, and have
“borrowed” that money from the Social Security “Trust Fund” — even
though the “Trust Fund” should be holding and investing those funds to
help cover future benefit payments.

Here, pending what I assume will be very minor revisions, is how
fiscal 2006 really turned out, in billions; the $179 billion listed as
“Social Security surplus” actually consists of a $177 billion Social
Security surplus and $2 billion in positive cash flow from the US Post
Office; both were estimated by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
in its August 17 Budget Update Report (large PDF document; information
is at Page 12):
FY2006deficit

All of this is important to understanding the following tantalizing
possibilities:

* If federal tax receipts continue to increase at just 9% per
year, which is only about 70% of the 13.1% average annual increase in
the past two fiscal years, and if federal spending and the Social
Security surpluses in future years turn out as the CBO predicts in the
Budget Report noted above, the last Bush budget in fiscal 2009 will
show a reported surplus.

* If federal tax receipts continue to increase at 9% per year, and
if federal spending and the Social Security surpluses continue to turn
out as the CBO predicts, it will be fiscal nirvana — a
honest-to-goodness REAL budget surplus will occur in fiscal 2011, less
than five years from now.

Here’s is how it will look if the described assumptions hold up:
DeficitThruFY2011proj

So, will these hoped-for serendipitous events take place? Well, there
are certainly a lot of barriers. Here are what I believe to be the
biggest four:

1. The CBO is assuming increases in projected outlays of just over
5% per year; unfortunately, the average increase during the past 5
years has been just under 7%. It’s not like 5% can’t be done; the
average increase in outlays during the first five years of GOP control
of Congress (1995-1999) was only 3.8%. The question is whether there
is anything even resembling resolve in Congress to keep spending under
control.
2. The 9% revenue increases, though less than those of the past
couple of fiscal years, still depend on two things that haven’t yet
happened. First, the tax structure enacted with the Bush tax cuts of
2003 only extends out to 2010. There is absolutely no chance that the
hoped-for revenue increases will materialize unless that tax structure
is made permanent, or at least extended by a minimum of five more
years. Make no mistake: The economy and the markets will treat a
failure in this area for what it would really be — a massive
growth-stalling tax increase that would drastically reduce the rate of
growth in tax receipts, possibly below zero.
3. The other thing that mostly hasn’t happened yet is fiscal
control in the various states. Most of them, thanks to the very
federal tax cuts that some governors and so many Blue Staters deride,
are awash in revenue. Unfortunately, as has so frequently occurred in
the past, most states are simply spending the extra money instead of
taking the opportunity to enact their own economy-stimulating tax
cuts. The states need to do their part to keep the economic engine
running. Ohio (of all states) actually came through on this front with
an income-tax reduction a few months ago, but needs to do much more.
4. Most ideally, the top federal rate should come down further from
its current 35%. In 1986, when the first wave of Reagan tax cuts
started losing steam, it took another cut of the top federal rate to
28% to get the annual pecentage increase in collections back into
double digits again. It’s likely that a cut in the top federal rate to
that same 28% level would accomplish an identical result; it would
certainly make the 9% revenue-increase assumption more likely to come
true, and it could even lead to a level of economic growth closer to
that achieved during the Reagan-Bush 41 and Kennedy-Johnson years.

As has been shown time and time again, suppy-side tax cuts work when
they are allowed to do their magic.

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On 13 Oct 2007 23:00:23 -0400, Maxwell Lol wrote:

Gunner writes:

Isnt it good to see Bush has cut the debt in half?

An increase of 2+ Trillion dollars isn't cutting the debt.


October 8, 2006
The Federal Budget Deficit: Bush Benchmark Achieved, Ignored
Filed under:

snip ...Department of Smoke and Mirrors. d8-)

Hey, that's quite a story, Gunner. It says that you can easily achieve
economic growth if you pay for it with a credit card. It also says that Bush
has been running the economy into a rathole, but that he's achieved his
administration's lofty goal: he's only running us into a rathole half as
fast as he was!

A legacy to be proud of, fer sure.

Regarding your sleight of hand about the paydown of the national debt during
Clinton's administration: From what I can tell, you're saying that the
year-over-year debt reductions weren't real, because the 5- and 15-year
projections were wrong. Is that about it, or did I lose track of the pea
while you were shuffling the shells around?

--
Ed Huntress

On Oct 13, 2:19 am, Gunner wrote:
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 06:08:49 -0700, wrote:
On Oct 11, 2:05 pm, Gunner wrote:
It started out innocently enough. I began to think at parties now
and then -- just to loosen up.

Inevitably, though, one thought led to another, and soon I was more
than just a social thinker.

Nah. You got it wrong, mate. Joining a political party is non
thinking, ie the belief that assorted proven rogues and ruffians can
somehow improve society.

Actually...joining a political party is pro-active. Think of them as
an interest group. A group of people who have joined together to push
a common agenda. Being complex, not all members have the exact same
agendas, but pragmatic compromises are made for the "common good" as
each group sees it.

Gosh........that sounds like Politics 101 in grade school. Wish I
lived on the same planet as you, Gunner. You make it sound so
reasonable, and simple.

I must be thinking too much, because from my observations, it seems
that political parties appeal to greed, or fear, or envy, and then get
elected on the promise of "fixing" whatever prejudice the "informed
voters" propound. Oh, and slag off the opposition too, that seems part
of the whole process. And say whatever it takes to get elected.

It gets compromised down to the lowest common denominator, especially
the one that says "it wont cost ME anything" - so, it just goes on,
and on. Just over 2,000 years of western civilization, its still a
bloody mess......

Andrew VK3BFA.

On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 01:21:34 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm,
Richard The Dreaded Libertarian quickly quoth:

? wrote:
But who is going to go down on Hillary?


Pope Al? ;-)

He's too busy picking up his WHAT? Jesus Freakin' Christ. Gore won a
Nobel Prize for that faked up flick of his? There is no justice.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/s...991972,00.html

Some errors exposed: http://tinyurl.com/yrk29m

--
Remember: Every silver lining has a cloud.
----

On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 00:21:29 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm,
Gunner Asch quickly quoth:

On 13 Oct 2007 23:00:23 -0400, Maxwell Lol wrote:

Gunner writes:

Isnt it good to see Bush has cut the debt in half?

An increase of 2+ Trillion dollars isn't cutting the debt.


October 8, 2006
The Federal Budget Deficit: Bush Benchmark Achieved, Ignored

You guys should get your terms cleared up before someone gets hurt.

The National Debt is one thing. Deficit Spending is another. I'll
leave it to you guys to figure out the definitions and stop confusing
each other.

Shrub may have reduced deficit spending (on paper) but has nearly
doubled the national debt on his own. (How does THAT work?)

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (and soon to be Iran, gods help us)
and on drugs and terror, plus the ineffectual Homeland Security
nonsense, are burying us.

--
Remember: Every silver lining has a cloud.
----

Larry Jaques wrote:

On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 01:21:34 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm,
Richard The Dreaded Libertarian quickly quoth:

? wrote:

But who is going to go down on Hillary?


Pope Al? ;-)


He's too busy picking up his WHAT? Jesus Freakin' Christ. Gore won a
Nobel Prize for that faked up flick of his? There is no justice.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/s...991972,00.html

Some errors exposed: http://tinyurl.com/yrk29m

--
Remember: Every silver lining has a cloud.
----


When I was a kid, I thought the 21st Century would be amazing.

Everything would be clean and work right.

Everything would be logical and make sense.

We would have peace and prosperity.

We'd all wear those pointy shoulder jackets.

And fly around in Mollar Air Cars, like George Jetson.


I gotta tell ya, folks, that the reality of it didn't
quite live up to expectations...


Richard

cavelamb himself wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:

On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 01:21:34 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm,
Richard The Dreaded Libertarian quickly quoth:

? wrote:

But who is going to go down on Hillary?


Pope Al? ;-)



He's too busy picking up his WHAT? Jesus Freakin' Christ. Gore won a
Nobel Prize for that faked up flick of his? There is no justice.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/s...991972,00.html

Some errors exposed: http://tinyurl.com/yrk29m

--
Remember: Every silver lining has a cloud.
----



When I was a kid, I thought the 21st Century would be amazing.

Everything would be clean and work right.


Only munitions


Everything would be logical and make sense.

It started with changing to the metric system.


We would have peace and prosperity.

It's coming,,,, with global warming no more heating bills.


We'd all wear those pointy shoulder jackets.


Some people got pointy heads, does that count?


And fly around in Mollar Air Cars, like George Jetson.

The rich and the political bosses fly around in heliocopters and private
jets.....



I gotta tell ya, folks, that the reality of it didn't
quite live up to expectations...


The best years were the sixties, its been downhill since then. I wonder
if the Vietnam was a big part of the demise?


John

In article ,
cavelamb himself wrote:


When I was a kid, I thought the 21st Century would be amazing.

Everything would be clean and work right.

Everything would be logical and make sense.

We would have peace and prosperity.

We'd all wear those pointy shoulder jackets.

And fly around in Mollar Air Cars, like George Jetson.


I gotta tell ya, folks, that the reality of it didn't
quite live up to expectations...


Richard

Well, the century's young yet. If we make it through 12, it might get
better. If we don't, we might not care -- or be able to.

Some ya win. Some ya lose. Some ya shouldn't even have come to the game.

On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 04:33:49 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Regarding your sleight of hand about the paydown of the national debt during
Clinton's administration: From what I can tell, you're saying that the
year-over-year debt reductions weren't real, because the 5- and 15-year
projections were wrong. Is that about it, or did I lose track of the pea
while you were shuffling the shells around?

--
Ed Huntress


Clintons "balanced budget" was the result of "projected revenues" that
if they had actually materialized..would have balanced the budget in 5
yrs.

However..those revenues DID NOT materialize, we were sliding into a
recession, we had the DotCom bubble implosion (thankyouforbothBubba)
and revenues started drying up.

So there was NO balanced budget. That was like me saying Ive paid
off all my bills because next year I hope to have made enough money to
do so.

Gunner

On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 04:47:12 -0700, wrote:

On Oct 13, 2:19 am, Gunner wrote:
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 06:08:49 -0700, wrote:
On Oct 11, 2:05 pm, Gunner wrote:
It started out innocently enough. I began to think at parties now
and then -- just to loosen up.

Inevitably, though, one thought led to another, and soon I was more
than just a social thinker.

Nah. You got it wrong, mate. Joining a political party is non
thinking, ie the belief that assorted proven rogues and ruffians can
somehow improve society.

Actually...joining a political party is pro-active. Think of them as
an interest group. A group of people who have joined together to push
a common agenda. Being complex, not all members have the exact same
agendas, but pragmatic compromises are made for the "common good" as
each group sees it.

Gosh........that sounds like Politics 101 in grade school. Wish I
lived on the same planet as you, Gunner. You make it sound so
reasonable, and simple.

I must be thinking too much, because from my observations, it seems
that political parties appeal to greed, or fear, or envy, and then get
elected on the promise of "fixing" whatever prejudice the "informed
voters" propound. Oh, and slag off the opposition too, that seems part
of the whole process. And say whatever it takes to get elected.

It gets compromised down to the lowest common denominator, especially
the one that says "it wont cost ME anything" - so, it just goes on,
and on. Just over 2,000 years of western civilization, its still a
bloody mess......

Andrew VK3BFA.


Did I ever claim it was perfect? On the other hand..your pessimism is
almost doomlike.

Gunner

On 14 Oct 2007 08:42:34 -0400, Maxwell Lol wrote:

Gunner Asch writes:

http://www.worldfreeinternet.net/news/nws174.htm

Which says

SOURCE: Excerpted from the 11 July, 1999, issue of the Los Angeles
Times, Orange County Edition, from an article entitled, "Heaping
Surplus Built on Mountain of Assumptions."


But the sources I posted were AFTER that article.

May 1, 2000
September 27, 2000


Projections that dont come true..arent real.

Of course. But I'm not talking about projections.
I was referring to ACTUAL payments against the national debt.
2000 was the first time in 25 years that the US government
actually reduced the size national debt.

Yet you claimed he had either balanced the budget or paid it off.

Make up your mind.


Gunner